Also, do you actually write out pseudo code on paper (regarding "reviewing code", "Refactoring code")?
It does change once it's written.
The idea is to get a clear work plan on a "close enough" design. I estimate that my first cut of anything is maybe 50% or so.
The idea is also to avoid sitting at the computer all day and then being disappointed with how little I accomplished. Activity != accomplishment.
A little more background...
First term freshman year, 90% of science students took Chemistry I. On Mondays and Wednesdays, only 50% of the seats in the dining room were taken for dinner. Chem Lab started at 1:00 p.m. and dinner was at 6:00 p.m. So, most freshman chemistry students took more than 5 hours to complete their lab work.
This never made sense to me. I took Chemistry I second term freshman year. My lab partner and I made a pact to never miss dinner. We did everything we possibility could to expedite lab time. We did all the reading, planning, and reviewing other people's results before we entered the lab. We even wrote our reports in advance, filling in the results as we went. Our longest lab took 2 1/2 hours. Our shortest took 1 1/4 hour. (We also both got A+.)
I still practice that methodology today. My computer is my lab and my bed or sofa is my lab prep. Preparation takes as long as it needs. Labs go fast. If they don't it's because I wasn't prepared enough when I started.
Also, thanks for posting some highlights of your activity on HN to your blog. I looked at the archives and found more good content there. I certainly think the points you made in this thread are worthy of being featured there.
Reminds me of programming in 1972. Think about the problem on your sofa, then buy an hour on the mainframe terminal to test out a solution. Science of all sorts seems to be done most rigorously (and thus successfully) when it's expensive to do the actual experiments.